Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Well before ever posting about this stuff, I did research...about a year's worth(in the case of IP/Aiki). I usually make some kind of smarta** remark, mostly for my own amusement. Nothing about the training, because I'm a beginer. Anyhow, it is beyond me why people don't get up and go train. I've gone to Washington DC, Canada, Japan, and soon Finland for seminars. I'm nowhere near rich. There is plenty on this website and others about IP/Aiki...use the search function, or be like me and read each thread from the start. Most times, your basic questions will be answered. For the real training methods, you will have to go TRAIN!!! It's true YouTube won't teach you anything, great to watch but without the training useless. But with a bit of training and direction vids can help. Just my opinion. Get up, open yourself and get out onto the floating bridge. I did and I'm better from it. So far I've had a great time and made many new friends. So if you are a bit intersted do a bit of research and seek it out. You most likely won't regret it!!! :0)

That excludes Iwama, Yoshinkan and Tomiki lineages. Are you saying that they did retain the old goods?

Quote:

The few Japanese arts that still maintain aiki within them, are not generally open to the "the world," and individuals who want to learn aiki must go through the process both of being accepted into those exclusive arts, and to have to learn the entire system in order to learn aiki. Even then, there is no guarantee that they will be taught the essense of aiki.

You forgot to clarify which "Japanese arts that still maintain aiki" you were referring to.

Do you object when other people here say that what they are doing is "Aiki"?

Best,

Chris

Hi Chris,
this strikes me as a bit ironic...to be fair, isn't this usually what "The IP Crowd" (for lack of a better description) tends to do? And, apart from styles in communication perhaps, isn't this probably the main source of contention we see in these conversations? I know I tend to have a problem with speed reading on AikiWeb (and thus missing crucial bits), and so I apologize if this is another case of that, but from my incomplete vantage, this is central to the difficulties we see; more so than suggestions of profiteering (which I think are fairly easily shown to be false).

Quote:

David wrote:

That excludes Iwama, Yoshinkan and Tomiki lineages. Are you saying that they did retain the old goods?

I find it hard to believe Tomiki Sensei didn't transmit his understanding of aiki, but based on what I've managed to read, "the goods" do take several years to really develop. Not that it cannot be developed within a few years, but to be "good" (whatever that means) it takes considerable effort...a huge change in day-to-day use of the body, which I assume (and maybe you know what "they" say about assume-ing) most people aren't willing to adopt.
...thinking of the notion that this aspect of Aikido training is somewhat self-selecting (i.e. it takes a degree of commitment that is easy to miss).

Krystal wrote:The words you use here and in other posts (the one you referenced, for example) that give me real pause when discussing IP stuff are "precious", "patents and copyrights", and "proprietary". Those words when added to the IHTBF claim really smells bad to me, especially when I can't seem to get much substantial technical info (physics, biomechanics, definitions) about what is happening. The rancor between people discussing IP along with the whiff of profit motive keeps me firmly in the skeptic's camp.

Krystal, others here have already addressed your viewpoint, but, with all due respect, I think that you are expressing some sort of sense of entitlement, that somehow no one should have a right to decide with whom they share knowledge or something else of value that may have been hard-won by them.

Don’t those who possess it have a right to determine how, or whether, it is disseminated, and to whom? It’s cynical to label all of those practitioners as being salesmen selling a product. Knowledge has value, and if it is given freely without any cost at all (whether in monetary payments or through the effort expended by the recipient to travel to the source and to put the time in), it is very often taken for granted.

I believe that we should be appreciative that there are people teaching without profit in mind. I also believe that they should be allowed to at least break even on their expenses, in doing so. Don’t you?
Yes, I will find a seminar. I will feel this for myself. I have attended a handful of Ikeda's seminars where he has claimed to be teaching IP stuff, but I am not yet satisfied that he is not simply doing on a more practiced level what I learn in my own dojo. I intend to make an IP seminar next year, if not a couple. I will feel this for myself.

I’m really glad that you will get out there and experience it for yourself. Seeking out an appropriate IP seminar and teacher is like searching for a good teacher of any discipline. We have to do the homework, talk to people, ask questions. A lot of people toss around the words “IP” and “IS,” and of course “aiki,” these days, to the point that the terms have taken on a life of their own. Individuals may possess some qualities of these concepts, but their kit is incomplete or lacks depth; even those who have more “complete” skill sets may express them in very different ways than other practitioners with the same core body skills. For every individual practicing, or claiming to practice, IP, there is a different depth and breadth of knowledge and skill, and of teaching ability. Finding the “right” one can be very trial-and-error.

However, I am also resistant to the idea that my individual experience at an IP seminar would be necessary and sufficient (in the mathematical sense) "proof" for me. I am not an entirely rational player, no one is. I prefer to rely upon a strong consensus from a large number of people who are also predominantly rational and trained in examining physical phenomena. I am happy to be a data point, I am happy to give my most rational assessment of my experience, and I am thrilled to hear from others. I've read enough to agree that there is something worth looking at, questions need to be asked, explored and answered to the extent possible. I am not yet satisfied by other people's answers, or their questions, for that matter.

Are you saying that you don’t have enough trust in your own ability to establish an informed opinion after experiencing something firsthand? When you get out and get your hands on a good seminar, you’ll have a basis upon which to compare other people’s input on their first-hand experiences, with your own.

My only caveat is that one seminar or even a couple of them is not enough to really “get” what’s going on; I can tell you from first-hand experience that the first time you feel something as unusual and new as the effects aiki and IP have on your body and senses, your brain is too busy trying to process the new data on a visceral level, to really get a grasp or understand what’s happening. No one goes to a seminar for the first time and says… “Zowie! So THAT’S what it is! I so totally GET it!” Nuh-uh. We come away saying “Holy cr*p! What the heck was that?! I gotta go back and feel it again.”

It takes repeated experience, with very basic exercises provided that help you to parse out the new kinds of body movement and all of the sensations related to them, before anything really starts to sink in. With IP, we have to learn to feel what’s going on inside our own body, get re-acquainted with our own body in a very different way, first, before we can understand what someone else is doing to us with his or her body.

A side note. One projection of "dual opposing spirals" is a lissajous. It does not follow that a lissajous is necessarily a projection of "dual opposing spirals". My evidentiary standards are pretty high. All squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.

One recurring misunderstanding in these discussions is that physical training is somehow directly translatable into flat mathematical/geometry equations or physics formulas. Sure, anything is, at a very esoteric level, but, when it comes to physical disciplines, terms such as “dual opposing spirals” are more applied concepts, almost metaphors, for the way force is being directed and managed within the body, through the intent-driven manipulation of actual body parts.

It’s very 3-D and involves more layers of activity than the movements of an inanimate object such as a hand-crank apple-peeler (not including the human turning that crank) with simple gears and cogs. IP and aiki are about learning by “feel” more than by the interpretation and extrapolation of theoretical physics.

I've gotten some response for expressing my discomfort with what seems like a profit motive. It is argued that the vast majority of aikido teacher teach for money, and that is certainly true. However, I have met few aikido teachers, and few martial arts teachers in general who use nondisclosure agreements and who forbid basic recording of their seminars. I have agreed a few times to not share the good and useful stuff I've learned in a class, but I dont really fully buy the whole secret art that is too deadly for mere folks can cause demonic health problems song and dance when the agreement is viewed under the spotlight of protecting paid access to a product provided by few individuals. Precious patented and copyrighted proprietary product, or a true return to real aikido? I dont know. I'm just uneasy with the tone of some of the discussion. The responses have not fully eased my mind.

Krystal, I don’t know how to allay your concerns about “profit motive,” though I appreciate anyone’s fear of being taken advantage of. All I can say, is that sometimes we just have to take the chance… but let it be an educated chance, taken after asking questions of people who have taken the plunge and vetted the various experts.

IP and aiki are very old and proven; they are not products, but a heritage and a legacy within the lines of individuals and systems that have perpetuated them for probably more than a millennia now – not just in some Japanese arts, but in various Chinese internal systems and those of a number of other cultures.

That some teachers and systems have chosen to keep their methods a secret, or have maintained tight control over their dissemination (which has already been addressed in this and other threads), is a fact of life, for the reasons that were suggested earlier. Again, it may be more productive for us to let go of any sense of entitlement toward other people’s knowledge, and more diplomacy and polite inquiry.

What many of us have been saying, is that there is a growing body of individuals who can and will teach these methods. Those who have already studied with them ARE bringing the material back into aikido, and, as has been stated, they would never go back to doing aikido the way they used to. For them, learning these things means coming home to their art’s true roots – not going away to something different.

I really wish people would stick to the OP and not jump all over the map. Aiki and IP, as a discussion, is much larger than me or a few posters here and what I was addressing.

Questions about profit as motive I find hilarious, given my fees, travel expenses and hours offered in seminars. That said:WHY....IS ANYONE DISCUSSING WHAT I CHARGE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
and then accusing me of only being interested in a marketing/profit motive?
Again
WHY?
Why have none of you EVER, sat here and discussed a virtual parade of top Budo teacher's rates, books, DVD's, first class tickets, marketing and mandatory seminars for rank.
Why_________________________?

And as is being demonstrated here by David and others, when you can't successfully address people's responses about fees (like Chris's to him) you change the subject. There is no interest.... none whatsoever......in addressing The OP's questions and issues... hundreds of senior teachers evaluations and switching over to what we are showing. So instead,simply ignore them, or find a way to explain it all away.

Why?
I know why.
1. How can you address the 100% failure rate of your teachers in open rooms (that is virtually undeniable).
2. The impossible scenario of almost 100% of teachers switching to what I and others are providing.
3. The fact that virtually none of you, not even one of you debating.....has demonstrated unusual power anywhere in front of anyone (as your founder was noted for).
4. I stand, in open rooms and discuss, define, and demonstrate Ueshiba's exercises and work, and then provide a means for people to start to at least understand and get power and aiki...on the spot.
5. No Aikido teacher in existence, (Japanese or otherwise that I am aware of) can or has done that for you. Not even a single one. Yet I have been and will continue to offer to help- as I was asked.

Hi Chris,
this strikes me as a bit ironic...to be fair, isn't this usually what "The IP Crowd" (for lack of a better description) tends to do? And, apart from styles in communication perhaps, isn't this probably the main source of contention we see in these conversations? I know I tend to have a problem with speed reading on AikiWeb (and thus missing crucial bits), and so I apologize if this is another case of that, but from my incomplete vantage, this is central to the difficulties we see; more so than suggestions of profiteering (which I think are fairly easily shown to be false).

Hi Matthew,

Well, I don't have any objection with someone saying that what we do isn't Aiki because of A, B or C technical or historical reasons. I do have a problem with objections that are based on an accusation of branding.

Quote:

Matthew Gano wrote:

I find it hard to believe Tomiki Sensei didn't transmit his understanding of aiki, but based on what I've managed to read, "the goods" do take several years to really develop. Not that it cannot be developed within a few years, but to be "good" (whatever that means) it takes considerable effort...a huge change in day-to-day use of the body, which I assume (and maybe you know what "they" say about assume-ing) most people aren't willing to adopt.
...thinking of the notion that this aspect of Aikido training is somewhat self-selecting (i.e. it takes a degree of commitment that is easy to miss).

It's certainly self-selecting. I would have loved to meet Tomiki - but I never did, so I couldn't say what he got and how much. A lot of people that I've met got something, some of them got a lot. However, getting a lot and being able to transmit it in a way that is self-sustaining is very difficult, however much you got, IMO.

It's interesting to note that one of the reasons that Sagawa believed that Takeda had created Aiki himself (rather than inheriting it from a long tradition) is that he believed that it was too difficult to transmit reliably over multiple generations. I'm not sure that I agree completely - but I certainly see his point.

Greg made a pretty good reply to that (and Carsten added an interesting additional comment) , and I agree - I don't see two different definitions at all.

Quote:

David Soroko wrote:

Not at all, just asking for what they mean by that and the proof.

That's just the thing, I don't see you asking most folks to provide proof when they talk about "Aiki" only a certain group. If you disagree with that definition (and it's been posted fairly clearly at various times) then provide your own and show us why that one should be more valid.

I do have a problem with objections that are based on an accusation of branding.

Wait, you mean I didn't have to get that big "D" burned onto my...dammit!
I sympathize with Krystal's discomfort regarding the way a lot of these discussions read, which was why I mentioned my own initial impressions, which shared a similar "vibe." And, let's face it, this whole IP thing has become quite popular, regardless of the reasoning. Someone could easily take advantage of that kind of situation for personal gain, but I agree with Dan and a bunch of others that it's generally better to assume the best of intentions in people. Speaking of which, I don't think she was making accusations so much as honestly describing how they trigger a response in her.
I think roughly comparing payout is useful as a relative metric. It does put the profiteering issue somewhat to rest, but in a sense it's a red-herring since we don't know her or others' views on the state of costs in Aikido. When you then consider her desire to check "IT" out, I think it's clear she finds some compelling evidence, probably based on the many testimonies we do see (i.e. an acknowledgement of the available evidence on AikiWeb). This was in context of IP, not "Modern Aikido," wasn't it?

...and for the record, I think perhaps I misunderstood part of Dan's point if he doesn't think the issue of monitary gain should have been mentioned in this thread. Considering it was in a bullet point at the top of the OP, it may have been mentioned to support the idea of an unfair treatment of those who support this kind of training in this forum, but that it was mentioned certainly does suggest (to me at least) it was part of the discussion.
...again I fall back on my own ignorance (if it were Fool's Gold I'd still be rich) as my own defense for having mentioned it. Sorry, Dan, for having done so! ...Sincerely, I'm sure you're pretty tired of this particular issue.

Quote:

It's interesting to note that one of the reasons that Sagawa believed that Takeda had created Aiki himself (rather than inheriting it from a long tradition) is that he believed that it was too difficult to transmit reliably over multiple generations. I'm not sure that I agree completely - but I certainly see his point.

This rings true to me. Of course I have only the weakest of inference to draw from, but it seems getting some of it might be easy, given direct instructions especially, but ultimately it seems to depend on how well people are able to tap into their own body/mind. Then again, maybe that was what he said to placate those he didn't teach directly. Who knows...
What I do "know" is training for many of us is a life-long endeavor and knowledge obfuscates as much as it reveals; maintaining an open mind (beginner mind) is often tougher the further along the path we go.
Ok, enough from this idiot. Take care, folks.
Matt
p.s. And a Happy Happy New Year to all of you and all of yours!!!!!!!

I'll also note that the only people who seem to challenge the right to express an opinion based on the lineage of the person stating the opinion seem to come from conventional Aikido.

This is incorrect. I see comments about "lineage" from the IP crowd constantly.

Quote:

lin·e·age
: noun
1.
lineal descent from an ancestor; ancestry or extraction: She could trace her lineage to the early Pilgrims.
2.
the line of descendants of a particular ancestor; family; race.

You don't use the word lineage, but you're getting at the same thing. When the IP crowd talks about "vetting" they are making a lineage comment. When the comments are coming from you directly, Chris, the "lineage argument" takes the form of translations. Usually you ask people to show where the founder said something. If shown this, you will often make comments about how your ability to understand the founders words are better then others. In essence you are saying that your understanding of "lineage" is better then others.

Why?
I know why.
1. How can you address the 100% failure rate of your teachers in open rooms (that is virtually undeniable).
2. The impossible scenario of almost 100% of teachers switching to what I and others are providing.
3. The fact that virtually none of you, not even one of you debating.....has demonstrated unusual power anywhere in front of anyone (as your founder was noted for).
4. I stand, in open rooms and discuss, define, and demonstrate Ueshiba's exercises and work, and then provide a means for people to start to at least understand and get power and aiki...on the spot.
5. No Aikido teacher in existence, (Japanese or otherwise that I am aware of) can or has done that for you. Not even a single one. Yet I have been and will continue to offer to help- as I was asked.

Dan

1. What teachers are you talking about?

2. I've now talked to several Aikido teachers who met you and "others", that gave the comment of "eh, not that interesting" I must have only talked to the very few who weren't interested, but that's still much less then 100%

3. That is very debatable, who is judging this "unusual power", I'm sure several of the people debating have blown their students minds at one point or another. "unusual power" is dependent on who's judging the demonstration.

4. How is it that you define "open room", Dan? Your seminars are not open rooms, I know this because you prescreen those who are allowed to come, that makes your seminars "closed rooms". When are you at these "open rooms"? I would like to meet you at one some day- they are open right? And you go to them to show your things, right?

5. You shouldn't speak for everyone. I have several teachers that have "done that" for me. I'm sure others here have as well.

This is incorrect. I see comments about "lineage" from the IP crowd constantly.

You don't use the word lineage, but you're getting at the same thing. When the IP crowd talks about "vetting" they are making a lineage comment. When the comments are coming from you directly, Chris, the "lineage argument" takes the form of translations. Usually you ask people to show where the founder said something. If shown this, you will often make comments about how your ability to understand the founders words are better then others. In essence you are saying that your understanding of "lineage" is better then others.

I ask people to show where the founder said something when the are saying that what they are doing is linked to what he said and did in some way - to show how that linkage works.

I'm not asking them to provide a qualifying technical lineage in order to express an opinion, those are two very different things.

If by "often make comments about how your ability to understand the founders words are better then others" you mean that when I say that some things are difficult to understand in translation, or out of the correct context, then yes, that's true. Are you really saying that isn't the case?

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Are you suggesting that you are not doing this?

Yes I am, I've asked my questions of Dan and the others - for years. Then I went to go meet them.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Yes, this is what both sides are doing. Ad nauseam. There are these two distinct groups. It's a shame really.

I haven't really seen much of a presentation of definitions of Aiki from conventional Aikido groups - certainly not of the quantity and detail that's been put out by others. Last time you provided two quotes, the time before that you said that you weren't really interested in linking your definition of Aiki to Ueshiba (or something to that effect).

I ask people to show where the founder said something when the are saying that what they are doing is linked to what he said and did in some way - to show how that linkage works.

So when we are talking about Aikido- this includes everything, because the founder created it, and you don't seem to be interested in anything that didn't come from him. So if someone talks about Aikido, and you disagree with what they are saying, you say it's not valid, because it didnt' come from the founder, and he invented Aikido. This is a constant modus operandi of yours.

Quote:

I'm not asking them to provide a qualifying technical lineage in order to express an opinion, those are two very different things.

It depends on what you mean by "technical lineage". If you mean Aikido waza, then I agree with you. But every time someone wants to express an opinion that you disagree with, and they haven't met Dan, or who ever else from that "lineage", you say that their opinion is not valid.

Quote:

If by "often make comments about how your ability to understand the founders words are better then others" you mean that when I say that some things are difficult to understand in translation, or out of the correct context, then yes, that's true. Are you really saying that isn't the case?

I'm saying that you only agree with your translations, or those who are like minded.

Quote:

I haven't really seen much of a presentation of definitions of Aiki from conventional Aikido groups - certainly not of the quantity and detail that's been put out by others.

Who are the "others", which of them have definitions that you don't agree with, but find compelling? The majority of definitions of Aiki come from conventional Aikido groups. Are you saying that only your definitions, and those of your faction are valid?

Quote:

Last time you provided two quotes,

We're mixing threads here. However you asked me to provide quotes showing where the way I was defining Aiki was related to the founder.

Quote:

the time before that you said that you weren't really interested in linking your definition of Aiki to Ueshiba (or something to that effect).

I just want to talk about Aikido, right now. Historical information is useful, and I've spent lot's of my time recently working with it. However I would like to talk about the Aikido world today, but your faction likes to say that todays Aikido isn't valid, because they are not in accord with the founder. I don't believe that is true, but unless pressed, I'm not interested in talking about that. I made my comment here, to hopefully bypass this corner, that it seems we must turn down on every thread here on Aikiweb.

So when we are talking about Aikido- this includes everything, because the founder created it, and you don't seem to be interested in anything that didn't come from him. So if someone talks about Aikido, and you disagree with what they are saying, you say it's not valid, because it didnt' come from the founder, and he invented Aikido. This is a constant modus operandi of yours.

Well, Ueshiba's opinion is certainly important, IMO. If you're doing something else, that's fine, but why say that it's what he was doing? I never said anything is not valid, not once.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

It depends on what you mean by "technical lineage". If you mean Aikido waza, then I agree with you. But every time someone wants to express an opinion that you disagree with, and they haven't met Dan, or who ever else from that "lineage", you say that their opinion is not valid.

It has nothing to do with lineage - but if there's an opinion that I disagree with then I'll certainly say that.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

I'm saying that you only agree with your translations, or those who are like minded.

There actually aren't very many translations that I've directly disagreed with - I can only think of one that I've disagreed with in any major way. I will say that there are quite a few misinterpretations of various translations, IMO - and I've given my reasons. Give me your reasons why my interpretation is wrong and we can discuss it.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

Who are the "others", which of them have definitions that you don't agree with, but find compelling? The majority of definitions of Aiki come from conventional Aikido groups. Are you saying that only your definitions, and those of your faction are valid?

Nope, never said that. The majority of "definitions" of Aiki from conventional groups haven't been stated or defended here, that's what I was saying.

Quote:

Chris Hein wrote:

I just want to talk about Aikido, right now. Historical information is useful, and I've spent lot's of my time recently working with it. However I would like to talk about the Aikido world today, but your faction likes to say that todays Aikido isn't valid, because they are not in accord with the founder. I don't believe that is true, but unless pressed, I'm not interested in talking about that. I made my comment here, to hopefully bypass this corner, that it seems we must turn down on every thread here on Aikiweb.

Well, there's nothing wrong with the Aikido world today, nobody's said that. People are doing what they're doing, and if they're happy with that then what's the problem?

Stan's been saying for years that what most people are doing is not the Aikido of the Founder. Anybody attacking him on Aiki Web?

If you're saying that x or y is "Aiki", however, then you get into another discussion of what "Aiki" is or might be - and here we are...

Q: But unless you resist, it isn't budo. That is why I don't like it.
A: You're talking about budo used for military rule. Kendo and Judo are said to be Japanese budo, but they are concerned with winning, aren't they? Since Aikido pursues harmony, it is different from those arts.

Q: So you throw your partner saying, "Be friends with me!", don't you?
A: How can I reply when someone like you says such things?

Q: Please forgive me if I said something to offend you. I am the one in favor of military rule, you know! (Laughter)
A: When an opponent comes to attack you, you just move your body slightly to avoid his attack, and let him go wherever he wants. This is Aiki. In other words, you give him freedom.

It has been said that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Quote:

Christopher Li wrote:

That's just the thing, I don't see you asking most folks to provide proof when they talk about "Aiki" only a certain group.

You, as in the followers of Dan Harden's method, claim exclusivity on "Aiki" while narrowing its meaning to suit your world view. To me this is extraordinary enough to require a proof. Should be to you too.

You appeal to Dan Harden's authority and when asked for clarification you reply with .

It wasn't an appeal to authority. My point was that everybody here attempts to use terms like "Aiki" with whatever definitions they use. My sense, historically, is that Dan has been criticized in many cases because he's "not an Aikido person". That was my point.

Quote:

David Soroko wrote:

It has been said that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

You, as in the followers of Dan Harden's method, claim exclusivity on "Aiki" while narrowing its meaning to suit your world view. To me this is extraordinary enough to require a proof. Should be to you too.

Dan's certainly never claimed exclusivity, neither have I. In fact I've said said many times that every one of Ueshiba's students that I've trained with got some or got a lot of what I'm talking about.

That there are opinions that I disagree with is obvious - isn't that true of everyone? That doesn't equal exclusivity.

Every direct student of the Founder that I've met (and I've met quite a few) seems to have gotten something from the Founder - some a little, and some a lot.

Virtually without exception, however, these students got what they got by the feel of working directly with the Founder, hand to hand. Because of this, those that got what they got seem to share an inability to comprehend exactly what it is that they got, how to explain it, and how to pass it on in turn to their students.

The results, a gradual and steady degradation of skill, ability and knowledge, are plain to see now that there are four or five of teachers descending from the Founder, for those who are honest enough to admit it.

Just wanted to say, I commend Chis Li and Dan and others in demonstrating patience towards their naysayers.

I have no clue why you guys are constantly arguing with people who are clearly not open to this type of work and even are antagonistic towards those who are presenting the work...but for real, respect.

Unless stated otherwise, all wisdom, follies, harshness, malice that may spring up from my writing are attributable only to me.

everybody - 1 at least. In my opinion trying to shoehorn the Founder's "Aiki" into any single paradigm makes no sense.

No way! Are you sure?

Quote:

Mary Malmros wrote:

Uh...really?

Folks
At some time in the future when youth begins to fail you, technique fails at times with out cooperative help...you will look for other approaches that can step in an support your waza.......and you will. Is Dan the only source...no... While he is a friend is he my only source....no... Dan and I have talked many times...he has been in my home 3 times and we have had this conversation every time.....Dan is not the only source, but he is a source and a solid one. My approach now while trying to keep my hand in Aikido is to find and use whatever is helpful, whether it comes from Dan, from my friend John or another Aikido friend Walter.....or Sam Chin when I get a chance.....all providing approaches outside of technical waza that is very helpful.

As John has said to me a number of times....technique can fail you, but principles never fail....put aside the rancor and take a chance that there may be value in what is being provided.

Folks
At some time in the future when youth begins to fail you, technique fails at times with out cooperative

etc. etc.

Gary, why did you quote me as a springboard for your thoughts? I was responding to the following statement from Chris Li:

"Well, there's nothing wrong with the Aikido world today, nobody's said that."

Apparently he felt that my response ("Um, really?") was "sarcasm". It was not. I don't know why on earth he would think that it was, or what strange interpretation you're making to call it "rancor", but it seems like you're both off in some direction all your own. Have fun with it, but don't mischaracterize honest disbelief at an astonishing statement as "rancor".

If you're saying that x or y is "Aiki", however, then you get into another discussion of what "Aiki" is or might be - and here we are...

I think many, if not most, people think of "aiki" as Aikido-like behavior; people considering it from an IP standpoint have a much more discrete meaning. In these conversations, rather than accept that people with a different frame of reference will necessarily apply meaning differently, and that most of them are unwilling to change their view of the term "aiki" over the internet, most IP advocates seem to often suggest there is something generally wrong with the understanding of the Aikido world today and give a somewhat formulaic/repetitive response arguing why. I find the points to be compelling on their own, but others do not. This comes up nearly any time someone describes their view of "aiki" (i.e. "I'm considering x, y, and z in my study of Aikido"). In those cases, "x, y, and z" are the intended points, but the threads get turned into reiterations of the same debates surrounding authenticity of the term aiki. I look at AikiWeb and see only a handful of people willing to participate, compared to what I remember from when I first joined several years ago, some of this may be coincidental, but I think most of it has to do with the tone generated by the IP discussions which is itself the product of personality interactions. I get the sense that this is because most people are tired of arguing over what "aiki" means and whether or not they have the right to use it in their posts...I get the sense that if non-IP folks stopped using the term altogether we'd see an improvement, but considering my view expressed in the first sentence, I don't see that happening any time soon.
...now off to read Small Gods, by Terry Pratchett. It's fun and helps me to laugh at the human condition. Take care y'all.
p.s. Sorry, Chris, I confused your remark about accusations in my last response to you. It dawned on me just as I was falling alseep.

I think many, if not most, people think of "aiki" as Aikido-like behavior; people considering it from an IP standpoint have a much more discrete meaning. In these conversations, rather than accept that people with a different frame of reference will necessarily apply meaning differently, and that most of them are unwilling to change their view of the term "aiki" over the internet, most IP advocates seem to often suggest there is something generally wrong with the understanding of the Aikido world today and give a somewhat formulaic/repetitive response arguing why. I find the points to be compelling on their own, but others do not. This comes up nearly any time someone describes their view of "aiki" (i.e. "I'm considering x, y, and z in my study of Aikido"). In those cases, "x, y, and z" are the intended points, but the threads get turned into reiterations of the same debates surrounding authenticity of the term aiki. I look at AikiWeb and see only a handful of people willing to participate, compared to what I remember from when I first joined several years ago, some of this may be coincidental, but I think most of it has to do with the tone generated by the IP discussions which is itself the product of personality interactions. I get the sense that this is because most people are tired of arguing over what "aiki" means and whether or not they have the right to use it in their posts...I get the sense that if non-IP folks stopped using the term altogether we'd see an improvement, but considering my view expressed in the first sentence, I don't see that happening any time soon.

Thank you for the above, Matthew. I agree with everything that you wrote.